lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH 2.6.37-rc5-tip 8/20] 8: uprobes: mmap and fork hooks.
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2011-01-25 13:15:41]:

> On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 15:28 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > +static void search_within_subtree(struct rb_node *n, struct inode *inode,
> > + struct list_head *tmp_list);
> > +
> > +static void add_to_temp_list(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct inode *inode,
> > + struct list_head *tmp_list)
> > +{
> > + struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > + struct rb_node *n;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + n = uprobes_tree.rb_node;
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&treelock, flags);
> > + while (n) {
> > + uprobe = rb_entry(n, struct uprobe, rb_node);
> > + if (match_inode(uprobe, inode, &n)) {
> > + list_add(&uprobe->pending_list, tmp_list);
> > + search_within_subtree(n, inode, tmp_list);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&treelock, flags);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void __search_within_subtree(struct rb_node *p, struct inode *inode,
> > + struct list_head *tmp_list)
> > +{
> > + struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > +
> > + uprobe = rb_entry(p, struct uprobe, rb_node);
> > + if (match_inode(uprobe, inode, &p)) {
> > + list_add(&uprobe->pending_list, tmp_list);
> > + search_within_subtree(p, inode, tmp_list);
> > + }
> > +
> > +
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void search_within_subtree(struct rb_node *n, struct inode *inode,
> > + struct list_head *tmp_list)
> > +{
> > + struct rb_node *p;
> > +
> > + if (p)
> > + __search_within_subtree(p, inode, tmp_list);
> > +
> > + p = n->rb_right;
> > + if (p)
> > + __search_within_subtree(p, inode, tmp_list);
> > +}
>
> Whee recursion FTW!, you just blew your kernel stack :-)
>
> Since you sort inode first, offset second, I think you can simply look
> for the first matching inode entry and simply rb_next() until you don't
> match.

Agree that we should get rid of recursion.

I dont think we can simply use rb_next() once we have the first
matching function. There could be a matching inode but a smaller
offset in left that will be missed by rb_next(). (Unless I have
misunderstood rb_next() !!!)

Here are the ways I think we can workaround.
A. change the match_inode() logic to use rb_first/rb_next.
This would make negate the benefit we get from rb_trees because we
have to match every node. Also match_offset might get a little tricky.

B. use the current match_inode but change the search_within_subtree
logic. search_within_subtree() would first find the leftmode node
within the subtree that still has the same inode. Thereafter it will use
rb_next().

Do you have any other ideas?

--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-26 16:23    [W:0.147 / U:2.244 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site